The first rule of economics is scarcity. There is never enough resources to satisfy the needs and wants of all people. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first rule of economics.
not quite. scarcity is not a rule, it is just a word. and there is more than enough to satisfy the needs and wants (if you understand 'wants' in it original meaning of "lack" rather than "desire").
the essential rule of economics may be stated in several ways: increase in supply results in increase in demand, increase in price result in decrease in demand.. increase in demand that does not result in an increase in supply will result in an increase in price.
not that that matters in the least. economics as you are stating it is a social construct, not a verity of nature. Economics as a practice is not a moral philosophy it is a means to an end. and you are framing the question in a way that suits the answer you would like to give. it is not so much a matter of a right to "stuff" as it is a matter of their being no greater a right to what is needed for well being on the part of one than any other, as all men are equal.
We suffer not from a lack of rights for "our daily bread" but rather from a denial of those rights on the part of those who control the means for producing it. It is not a matter of "property is theft" as "ownership is denial of access". when EVERYTHING is owned by someone, that denial becomes, essentially, a denial of natural right to those who do not own enough.
it is not a new idea. it has its roots in the earliest of civilizations and likely before. Contemporary liberals, though, will trace their claim's roots to the beginning of modern liberalism and the pursuit of liberty and natural right. many of those whom we honor as predicating the freedoms and wealth that we enjoy gave us the foundations for such a claim:
The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests. . . . .Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.
- John Locke
Locke is a favorite of Conservatives and Libertarians (which, are after all, just conservatives in jeans who smoke pot), but they tend to leave out those of his ideas they find inconvenient. It was Locke's premise, for instance that wealth is just dandy... and in fact, Adam Smith cites Locke...but Locke insisted this was only true when the essential needs of ALL had been met (damned commie!).
but, let us consider someone a little closer to what it means to be an american, Thomas Paine". Do not think, though, that I intend to present m. Paine as an antagonist toward the ownership of property or of personal wealth. he was not. In spite of the progress of Liberal revolutions, he said
"we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute."
sounds a lot like a tea partier, don't he. well, of course, in a sense he was. He was not out there on the deck of a merchant ship dressed like an indian, of course, but the sentiment was certainly his. but... he was not so simpleminded nor as avaricious as most conservatives are today. he begins with some simple premises (all quotes taken from Paine's, The Rights Of Man)
Political liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not injure another.
The right to property being inviolable and sacred, no one ought to be deprived of it
A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of Duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.
Government is nothing more than a national association; and the object of this association is the good of all, as well individually as collectively.
Every individual, high or low, is interested (that is, "has a material interest in, invested' - geo.) in the fruits of the earth....It is the only one for which the common prayer of mankind is put up, and the only one that can never fail from the want (that is, "lack") of means (that is, the ability to acquire it). It is the interest, not of the policy, but of the existence of man, and when it ceases, he must cease to be.
summary: a rightful claim to the material wealth of the earth or of a nation belongs to no one, but all. to deny that is to injure another. We form governments to guarantee and enforce these basic, natural rights.
conclusion:
In stating these matters, I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. . . .it is no wonder that meanness [ie: greed] and imposition appear disgustful. Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
Public money ought to be touched with the most scrupulous consciousness of honour. It is not the produce of riches only, but of the hard earnings of labour and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want [that is, "lack" or "need"] and misery. Not a beggar passes, or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that mass.
he recommends "to make a remission of taxes to the poor" as a practical as well as a moral matter and a recognition of natural right. in other words, eliminate the inhumane 'workfare' and simply give poor people enough of what we all need to survive and to which we ALL have a natural right. it will cost less and provide better. that has been shown to be true, btw.... in the days of real welfare programs, the insistence on catching 'cheats' resulted in a far greater expenditure in enforcement than was actually lost through questionable claims.
It will then remain to be considered, which is the most effectual mode of distributing this remission.... It is easily seen, that the poor are generally composed of large families of children, and old people past their labour. If these two classes are provided for, the remedy will so far reach to the full extent of the case, that what remains will be incidental
one criteria, he obliges, and one only; that all children attend school.
not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater.
he justifies this not as an act of charity ("not as a matter of grace and favour") but one of a nation's pursuit of soverign well being and as an individual "right". the result?
The hearts of the humane will not be shocked by ragged and hungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty years of age, begging for bread. The dying poor will not be dragged from place to place to breathe their last... Widows will have a maintenance for their children, and not be carted away, on the death of their husbands, like culprits and criminals; and children will no longer be considered as increasing the distresses of their parents. The haunts of the wretched will be known, because it will be to their advantage; and the number of petty crimes, the offspring of distress and poverty, will be lessened. The poor, as well as the rich, will then be interested (again, meaning "having a material investment") in the support of government, and the cause and apprehension of riots and tumults will cease.-
and, again, this has been shown to have merit. no, it will not eliminate crime all by itself but it does reduce it. there is lots of data to support that.
but practical reasons aside and to repeat - no one has the right to deny any other what they need to maintain simple well being NOR to oblige that anyone dedicate their time and energies to obtain what they have a right to.
the first is theft. the latter is slavery.
geo.
